With solely private funding, the homeless shelter may be able to shelter X number of people. With government funds, say, in the event of a hurricane, and lots of people out of homes, the shelter might be able to help 2X people. As for "taking the credit," Planned Parenthood routinely solicits donations and the extent of THEIR government funding is downplayed. The co-mingling already happens, bub. They're not giving much "credit" to the government, either. You want a sign saying "X% of funding for this soup kitchen is from FEMA?" fine, I don't think the charities will mind, as long as they get to help people.
I hadn't seen anything in the articles about the Salvation Army's employment practices talking about discrimination in who they help. Here's a really odd concept for you- Catholic Charities helps non-catholics and non-christians as well. Try to wrap your mind around that concept.
Salvation Army routinely takes in "non-members" for volunteer and front-line positions. Bringing up chefs and janitors is a red herring. It's when those chefs are let go AFTER the disaster is past, and they cry about not scoring an administrative/management post in the organization.
Nope, this is a matter of "Government funds can go to causes and people I approve of, but those I don't approve of are discriminating if they don't bow to my view." Which, unless you're advocating the government stepping out of a LOT of things, (and I do), then this whole topic is hypocritical. |
